\n<\/p>\n
Leave it to Michigan\u2019s Democratic lawmakers to trot out the tired old trope<\/a> of \u201cconsumer protection\u201d as an excuse to wage war on the firearm industry<\/a>. Their latest legislative push, now advancing through the state House Judiciary Committee, proposes removing liability protections for gun manufacturers. The aim? To bypass federal protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and bankrupt gun companies through an avalanche of lawsuits.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s get one thing straight: the PLCAA doesn\u2019t give gun manufacturers blanket immunity. What it does is protect them from frivolous lawsuits designed to punish them for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. It doesn\u2019t protect them if their products are defective or if they engage in false advertising. Yet Michigan Democrats are claiming their proposed legislation is about consumer protection and holding gunmakers accountable for so-called \u201cirresponsible practices.\u201d<\/p>\n The PLCAA is a federal law that ensures gun manufacturers and sellers aren\u2019t held responsible for crimes committed by individuals using their products. It\u2019s no different than shielding carmakers from being sued every time someone gets drunk and crashes a car, killing someone, or preventing alcohol manufacturers from being sued because someone drank too much and caused a fatal wreck.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s be honest: If you try to sue Ford or Toyota because a drunk driver used their vehicle to kill someone, you\u2019ll get laughed out of court unless you can prove a specific defect in the vehicle caused the crash. And you will likely be sued to repay the costs of their defense in the case. The same principle applies to firearms. You can sue a gun company if a gun is defective, just like you can sue an automaker if faulty brakes cause an accident. But you don\u2019t get to sue simply because someone misuses the product. But anti-gun Democrats aren\u2019t just misleading the public about this, they are blatantly lying. They say laws like the PLCAA protects gun makers from \u201cany\u201d lawsuit. But that simply is not true. State Rep. Ranjeev Puri parrots the lies spewed by groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, which isn\u2019t about safety, but about supporting anti-gun legislation.<\/p>\n LIE 1: \u201cThe proposed bills would remove protections that have for years given the gun industry immunity that no other industry is afforded, said state Rep. Ranjeev Puri, a Canton Township Democrat who helped introduce the bills,\u201d the Detroit Free Press<\/a><\/em> reports.<\/p>\n LIE 2: \u201cThis bill would allow victims of gun violence and impacted communities to hold the gun industry accountable for irresponsible practices that have for years created dangerous conditions in the state of Michigan,\u201d Puri told the Free Press<\/em>.<\/p>\n Michigan\u2019s bill doesn\u2019t protect consumers; it creates a legal minefield designed to crush gunmakers under the weight of endless litigation and an opportunity for failing Democratically run cities to try to cash in on their persecution to fill their coffers to fund more ineffective city programs. State Rep. Kelly Breen, a Democrat backing the legislation, claims this isn\u2019t about the Second Amendment. Really? What else would you call a proposal that allows anyone to sue gun manufacturers for legally selling a perfectly functioning product?<\/p>\n State Rep. Andrew Fink, a Republican, nailed it when he described this as a \u201cshadow ban\u201d on firearms. The legislation doesn\u2019t seek accountability\u2014it seeks annihilation.<\/p>\n Under Michigan\u2019s proposal, gun manufacturers could be sued for \u201ccreating a public nuisance\u201d through the lawful marketing or sale of their products. Imagine if that same logic were applied to other industries: Could knife makers be sued because someone used a kitchen knife in a stabbing? Could a brewery be held liable for a drunk driver\u2019s actions? Should makers of violent movies and video games be held liable for crimes committed by those who may be inspiried by their creations? We know advertising\u2013the creation of words, sounds, images or video to promote a brand, product or service in order to illicit a response from consumers\u2013works. If it didn\u2019t, companies wouldn\u2019t spend a projected $389.49 billion on advertising in 2024<\/a>. So, why do we think some unstable people are not influenced by the violent images and depictions they see and experience in movies and video games?<\/p>\n If this legislation were truly about consumer safety, Democrats would be targeting other industries as well. Yet, we don\u2019t see calls to hold alcohol companies liable for drunk driving deaths. That\u2019s because dram shop laws\u2014which hold establishments, not manufacturers, responsible for over-serving alcohol\u2014already address those issues. Similarly, car manufacturers aren\u2019t dragged into court when someone decides to ignore the law and speed through a school zone.<\/p>\n Why should gunmakers be treated differently? Because Democrats want to bankrupt them, plain and simple.<\/p>\n Firearms are designed to fire projectiles. When projectiles made of lead or other metals strike tissue and bone at say anywhere between 800 fps and 4,000 fps, it can do some major freaking damage. Serious injury and even death can result. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime, and the gun works as intended, that\u2019s not a defect\u2014it\u2019s a crime. Michigan\u2019s proposal pretends to ignore this basic truth while relying on the kind of virtue-signaling that\u2019s become the hallmark of anti-gun lawmakers.<\/p>\n If the goal were really about \u201caccountability,\u201d we\u2019d see the same level of scrutiny applied to video game developers or Hollywood producers who create violent media. After all, violent video games and movies (as already noted above) could arguably inspire someone to commit violence. But under the First Amendment, media creators are protected. The same principle should apply to the firearms industry under both the First and the Second Amendments.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s not kid ourselves: even if Michigan Democrats succeed in passing this legislation, the PLCAA will supersede it. Federal law is clear, and it\u2019s not going anywhere. So why push for laws that will inevitably fail? Simple: it\u2019s political theater designed to curry favor with their liberal base while wasting everyone\u2019s time and resources. That or they are genuinely intellectually stunted to the point that they fail to see the legal illogic in their proposals. They need to educate themselves if this is the case. <\/p>\n Michigan\u2019s bill isn\u2019t about consumer protection or safety; it\u2019s about disarming the public and dismantling the firearms industry. The PLCAA was enacted to prevent precisely this kind of bad-faith legislation, and it will continue to protect gunmakers from being scapegoated for the actions of criminals.<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t about safety or accountability\u2014it\u2019s about control. And gun owners everywhere should be paying attention. In fact, Americans everywhere should be paying attention. Because if they can pass this, it sets the blueprint for legislators to come after any product you hold dear and that can be misused in a way that someone else doesn\u2019t like. Is this really the America we want to live in?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nPLCAA: A Necessary Shield Against Frivolous Lawsuits<\/h2>\n
A Transparent Attempt to Bankrupt Gunmakers<\/h2>\n
The Double Standard<\/h2>\n
Guns Are Inherently Dangerous\u2014 Ummm, That\u2019s the Point Stupid<\/h2>\n
Federal Law Will Prevail<\/h2>\n
![<\/a><\/div>\nLeave it to Michigan\u2019s Democratic lawmakers to trot out the tired old trope<\/a> of \u201cconsumer protection\u201d as an excuse to wage war on the firearm industry<\/a>. Their latest legislative push, now advancing through the state House Judiciary Committee, proposes removing liability protections for gun manufacturers. The aim? To bypass federal protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and bankrupt gun companies through an avalanche of lawsuits.<\/p>\nLet\u2019s get one thing straight: the PLCAA doesn\u2019t give gun manufacturers blanket immunity. What it does is protect them from frivolous lawsuits designed to punish them for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. It doesn\u2019t protect them if their products are defective or if they engage in false advertising. Yet Michigan Democrats are claiming their proposed legislation is about consumer protection and holding gunmakers accountable for so-called \u201cirresponsible practices.\u201d<\/p>\nPLCAA: A Necessary Shield Against Frivolous Lawsuits<\/h2>\nThe PLCAA is a federal law that ensures gun manufacturers and sellers aren\u2019t held responsible for crimes committed by individuals using their products. It\u2019s no different than shielding carmakers from being sued every time someone gets drunk and crashes a car, killing someone, or preventing alcohol manufacturers from being sued because someone drank too much and caused a fatal wreck.<\/p>\nLet\u2019s be honest: If you try to sue Ford or Toyota because a drunk driver used their vehicle to kill someone, you\u2019ll get laughed out of court unless you can prove a specific defect in the vehicle caused the crash. And you will likely be sued to repay the costs of their defense in the case. The same principle applies to firearms. You can sue a gun company if a gun is defective, just like you can sue an automaker if faulty brakes cause an accident. But you don\u2019t get to sue simply because someone misuses the product. But anti-gun Democrats aren\u2019t just misleading the public about this, they are blatantly lying. They say laws like the PLCAA protects gun makers from \u201cany\u201d lawsuit. But that simply is not true. State Rep. Ranjeev Puri parrots the lies spewed by groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, which isn\u2019t about safety, but about supporting anti-gun legislation.<\/p>\nLIE 1: \u201cThe proposed bills would remove protections that have for years given the gun industry immunity that no other industry is afforded, said state Rep. Ranjeev Puri, a Canton Township Democrat who helped introduce the bills,\u201d the Detroit Free Press<\/a><\/em> reports.<\/p>\nLIE 2: \u201cThis bill would allow victims of gun violence and impacted communities to hold the gun industry accountable for irresponsible practices that have for years created dangerous conditions in the state of Michigan,\u201d Puri told the Free Press<\/em>.<\/p>\nA Transparent Attempt to Bankrupt Gunmakers<\/h2>\nMichigan\u2019s bill doesn\u2019t protect consumers; it creates a legal minefield designed to crush gunmakers under the weight of endless litigation and an opportunity for failing Democratically run cities to try to cash in on their persecution to fill their coffers to fund more ineffective city programs. State Rep. Kelly Breen, a Democrat backing the legislation, claims this isn\u2019t about the Second Amendment. Really? What else would you call a proposal that allows anyone to sue gun manufacturers for legally selling a perfectly functioning product?<\/p>\nState Rep. Andrew Fink, a Republican, nailed it when he described this as a \u201cshadow ban\u201d on firearms. The legislation doesn\u2019t seek accountability\u2014it seeks annihilation.<\/p>\nUnder Michigan\u2019s proposal, gun manufacturers could be sued for \u201ccreating a public nuisance\u201d through the lawful marketing or sale of their products. Imagine if that same logic were applied to other industries: Could knife makers be sued because someone used a kitchen knife in a stabbing? Could a brewery be held liable for a drunk driver\u2019s actions? Should makers of violent movies and video games be held liable for crimes committed by those who may be inspiried by their creations? We know advertising\u2013the creation of words, sounds, images or video to promote a brand, product or service in order to illicit a response from consumers\u2013works. If it didn\u2019t, companies wouldn\u2019t spend a projected $389.49 billion on advertising in 2024<\/a>. So, why do we think some unstable people are not influenced by the violent images and depictions they see and experience in movies and video games?<\/p>\nThe Double Standard<\/h2>\nIf this legislation were truly about consumer safety, Democrats would be targeting other industries as well. Yet, we don\u2019t see calls to hold alcohol companies liable for drunk driving deaths. That\u2019s because dram shop laws\u2014which hold establishments, not manufacturers, responsible for over-serving alcohol\u2014already address those issues. Similarly, car manufacturers aren\u2019t dragged into court when someone decides to ignore the law and speed through a school zone.<\/p>\nWhy should gunmakers be treated differently? Because Democrats want to bankrupt them, plain and simple.<\/p>\nGuns Are Inherently Dangerous\u2014 Ummm, That\u2019s the Point Stupid<\/h2>\nFirearms are designed to fire projectiles. When projectiles made of lead or other metals strike tissue and bone at say anywhere between 800 fps and 4,000 fps, it can do some major freaking damage. Serious injury and even death can result. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime, and the gun works as intended, that\u2019s not a defect\u2014it\u2019s a crime. Michigan\u2019s proposal pretends to ignore this basic truth while relying on the kind of virtue-signaling that\u2019s become the hallmark of anti-gun lawmakers.<\/p>\nIf the goal were really about \u201caccountability,\u201d we\u2019d see the same level of scrutiny applied to video game developers or Hollywood producers who create violent media. After all, violent video games and movies (as already noted above) could arguably inspire someone to commit violence. But under the First Amendment, media creators are protected. The same principle should apply to the firearms industry under both the First and the Second Amendments.<\/p>\nFederal Law Will Prevail<\/h2>\nLet\u2019s not kid ourselves: even if Michigan Democrats succeed in passing this legislation, the PLCAA will supersede it. Federal law is clear, and it\u2019s not going anywhere. So why push for laws that will inevitably fail? Simple: it\u2019s political theater designed to curry favor with their liberal base while wasting everyone\u2019s time and resources. That or they are genuinely intellectually stunted to the point that they fail to see the legal illogic in their proposals. They need to educate themselves if this is the case. <\/p>\nMichigan\u2019s bill isn\u2019t about consumer protection or safety; it\u2019s about disarming the public and dismantling the firearms industry. The PLCAA was enacted to prevent precisely this kind of bad-faith legislation, and it will continue to protect gunmakers from being scapegoated for the actions of criminals.<\/p>\nThis isn\u2019t about safety or accountability\u2014it\u2019s about control. And gun owners everywhere should be paying attention. In fact, Americans everywhere should be paying attention. Because if they can pass this, it sets the blueprint for legislators to come after any product you hold dear and that can be misused in a way that someone else doesn\u2019t like. Is this really the America we want to live in?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Leave it to Michigan\u2019s Democratic lawmakers to trot out the tired old trope of \u201cconsumer protection\u201d as an excuse to wage war on the firearm industry. Their latest legislative push, now advancing through the state House Judiciary Committee, proposes removing liability protections for gun manufacturers. The aim? To bypass federal protections under the Protection of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4322,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4321","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4321","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4321"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4321\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/Beretta-factory-in-Italy-courtesy-gunsforsale.com_.jpg\"){kind=link}